Which macro lens should I buy!

I have some lenses.. and have seen the need of a good Macro lence.

But which one should I buy? hopefully under $ 1500!!
Morten
The guy from Norway

I would go for the Canon 100mm macro anyday over the Canon 60mm. The 100 allows you to not constantly shadow your subject by having to be right on top of it, as well as eliminating unwanted background clutter by narrowing the field of view. Just count on using a tripod most of the time with macro.
http://picasaweb.google.com/jerrybrendle/AFewNiceOnes
http://picasaweb.google.com/jerrybrendle/DowntownAshevilleNCWithCanon1022mm40D

I mean.. I have seen some pictures here that shows the eye of an insect... can you do that with a canon macro 100 mm???? or do I need more stuff?????
--
Morten
The guy from Norway

BaiaZ said:

I mean.. I have seen some pictures here that shows the eye of an
insect... can you do that with a canon macro 100 mm???? or do I need
more stuff?????
--
Morten
The guy from Norway

Click to expand...

The 100mm can render an image on the sensor that is equal to the size of the actual subject. I'm sure there's extention tubes that allow you to get in even closer. You'll need a ring light for working in at that kind of distances.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/jerrybrendle/AFewNiceOnes
http://picasaweb.google.com/jerrybrendle/DowntownAshevilleNCWithCanon1022mm40D

Can I come as close like this?



--
Morten
The guy from Norway

The only really interesting one is the Nikon 105mm VR with image stabilizer. Unfortunately you´ll need a camera body together with the lens. So its not very practical.

Among the Canon compatible lenses I consider the Sigma 150 f2.8 and the Canon 100 f2.8 the most interesting.

Shorter macro lenses (such as the Sigma 50mm, Canon 60mm or 100mm, or the Sigma 100mm) are easier to use, but you have to be pretty close to the subject (closer with the 60mm), which can disturb bugs and make lighting harder. Longer ones, like the Sigma 150, or the expensive Canon 180L, mean the same maginification at a greater distance, which makes lighting easier and you'll less likely to disturb the subject.

If you're REALLY into macro, the Canon MP-E lens is wonderful (and can give 5x magnification, while normal macro lenses, such as those above, only achieve 1x), but it is tough to use - I wouldn't recommend it as your first macro lens. This is essentially a 65mm macro lens with integrated variable extension tubes. You could acheive similar effects with extension tubes on a 100mm lens, but with more effort.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

It's an inexpensive, but EXCELLENT Macro lens.

All shot with this lens:

BaiaZ said:

I have some lenses.. and have seen the need of a good Macro lence.

But which one should I buy? hopefully under $ 1500!!
Morten
The guy from Norway

Click to expand...

--
bryan
--------
http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/



Canon 50D Images: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/p949109255

The Sigma 150 f2.8 macro is excellent and gives you working distance, quality build, tremendous optics, is the equivalent or better than the Canon 180 and is substantially cheaper.

Here's a link to Fred Miranda's site of user reviews of it:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=280&sort=7&cat=38&page=1
--
Rationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.
Joni Mitchell

So how far from the subject are you generally when you shoot with the 100?

--
http://www.jacemouse.com

I have the 60 and 100, the 100 is better by far.

I went to my first 3rd party lens with a Sigma 18-50mm and I really like it. It was less than $450 on Amazon, so if you NEED $1500 worth of quality, then there are other lenses out there.
--
Bogus Exception 8100000A
http://blog.atcp.us

Depends on how big those things are. If that's a singe blade of grass on the right, probably not. If the leaf on the left is 3-4 inches high, then probably.

I went with the 100/2.8 - a great lens even when not shooting macro.

I don't have mine handy to measure the minimum focus distance (where optically you get 1:1 magnification), but it is at around 10"-12." For the others, you can calculate it simply based on focul length (assumimg they give 1:1), so a 50mm is half that and a 180mm is almost twice that.

--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

I'm not sure what your point is - the lens you mention is not a true macro lens.

On the other hand, Sigma does make some decent true macro lenses: a 50mm (which I have), a 100mm (I have the Canon), and a 150mm.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

I've taken some of my favorite photos with that lens - it's amazing.

-TM

The 60EFS, MPE65, 100 & 180L. From favourite to least: MPE65, 60, 180L & 100.

The MPE65 is an amazing lens and truely unique; with magnifications up to 5x you will achieve the seemingly impossible. Wonderful contrast as well.

The 60EFS is super sharp and has great contrast. Also the cheapest in the lineup.

With the short focal length, the camera is however quite close to the insect at 1:1 and flightly insects will take fright at the mirror slap. One advantage of short focal length macro lenses is that if there is a breeze blowing the insect about on a leaf, you can hold the leaf with the left hand and shoot with the right; this can not be done with longer macros.

The 180L: nothing in the macro range compares for sharpness or contrast but being so long means that it is hard to hand hold and keeper rate is correspondingly low but when you get a good shot, it can be a stunner. Expensive.

The 100 is a sharp lens, but images appear to me to be somewhat flat and lacking contrast compared to the others. I have never used this lens again since obtaining the 60.

FWIW, most of my photography is macro and I often post on the macro thread within the Canon SLR lens talk forum. I suggest that you visit this thread to see what others take and to get a more balanced view on the various macro lenses and what they can achieve.

Kind regards
Stephen

BaiaZ said:

I have some lenses.. and have seen the need of a good Macro lence.

But which one should I buy? hopefully under $ 1500!!
Morten
The guy from Norway

Click to expand...

That's the other question. The 60mm macro is a good portrait lens, as is the 100mm, although it is at the longer limit. All except the MP-E are great primes.

The MP-E is in a class of its own - it can't shoot anything but macro.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

This is a cropped photo taken with the Canon 60mm macro.
I have found the lens to do well.



--
Carl Sagan: 'Skeptical scrutiny is the means,
in both science and religion,
by which deep thoughts can be winnowed
from deep nonsense. '

60f2,8 is a lightweight and extremely sharp lens. Focuses quite fast . If there are no butterflies or flowers around it is a good lens for landscapes - especially if you need big and sharp print of something.

Only "problem" is ( as Jeff Peterman already said ) the focusing distance is very short if you want 1:1 - not a perfect lens for scary butterflies ( my 70-300IS was easier to use - in that butterfly situation - IS is needed if you can not have a tripod)

Some tripod/beanbag - system and a cable release are useful too !
--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E